From: Peiman Khosravi (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 20 2009 - 04:18:48 PDT
>
> As a visual construct, Dog Star Man is of course open to analysis.
> In particular,
> the film’s strong affinities with Abstract Expressionist thought and
> practice may
> make it attractive for Khosravi to consider quantizing its various
> aspects with
> respect to diagonalization or other formalist algorithmic methods.
> However, it is
> at least equally (and almost certainly more) apt to see Dog Star Man
> as Sitney
> does: that is, as a mythopoeic expression, steeped in late
> romanticism and
> crypto-symbolist image relationships.
There are different ways of looking at the same work. Likewise, I can
analyze a work of music in terms of spectromorphological relationships
and as you say "crypto-symbolist image relationships". The existence
of one analytical viewpoint does not negate the other. In the same way
you may study Wagner's Parsifal in terms of tonal relationships and
motivic manipulation as abstract elements, or in terms of semiotics in
relation to the plot's development. I don not see why these different
aspects cannot coexist.
In addition it is not "quantizing" that I am interested in. Nor is it
simply "diagonalization or other formalist algorithmic methods". I
agree with you that these terms are highly simplistic in the context
of the complex world of audio/visual relationships. My post did not
assert these ideas as my objective, although you seem to have this
impression (again I can only think of a case of misreading my post/
article).
>
> My assertion is not that Khosravi is “wrong” or “shouldn’t” be
> playing around
> with Dog Star Man. My assertion is rather that Dog Star Man is so
> overdetermined
> as a cultural marker that it can’t possibly stand in as a neutral
> vehicle for the
> study of image/sound relationships.
Can anything stand as a neutral vehicle?
> Is ANY film better suited to this study,
> though? I would say that perhaps EVERY film is suited for the study
> of film/sound
> relationships, and even (going further) that every SOUND is suited
> for the study
> of film/sound relationships. In fact, to a substantial degree the
> problematic
> relationships that obtain between images and sounds is what
> filmmakers in general
> concern themselves with, and in that measure Khosravi’s “project” is
> both
> reductivist and insultingly dismissive of our field, another way of
> saying which
> is that the project is ignorant or (more kindly put) jejune.
>
> -----------t0ny
>
OK so the problem is that I am being ignorant to your field. That this
is a job better left to the filmmaker. I believe it would be more
insulting to your field if I named myself a filmmaker and made an
awful mess of it, as often done in musical circles. I cannot think of
one possible reason why I should be so rudely condemned for carrying
out this experiment as a musical project, not to mention an academic
one. Surely the point of experimenting, academic research and studying
is to learn from mistakes. Or is this too offensive towards a certain
"socio-political stance"? So what we are really talking about here is
this particular "socio-political stance" of yours that has clearly
been highly offended to the point of being rude, not only to me but
also towards my supervisor. I find this attitude highly damaging and I
condemn any "socio-political stance" that can produce such a response.
If you feel that my approach is misinformed or misguided then as an
expert it is your responsibility/duty to inform me, guide me or at the
very worst let me learn it the hard way...
Yours,
Peiman
>
> On Mon 10/19/09 1:40 PM , Flick Harrison email suppressed
> sent:
>> Tony,
>> If indeed you have such a scathing critique at hand, perhaps you
>> should figure out where to begin, and begin.
>> What you've posted, however informed and considered the source of
>> your outrage, is simply insulting and critical without much
>> substance.
>> Perhaps everyone who is as smart and educated as yourself already
>> knows how to read your mind, but that won't do much good for poor
>> Peiman, since, as you seem aware, he's not as smart or educated as
>> you.
>> ;-)
>> Artistic responses to canonical works are jejune? I always thought
>> they were de rigeur.
>> -Flick
>> On 19-Oct-09, at 07:58 , Tony Conrad wrote:
>> Hi Peiman-------
>>
>> This is such a misbegotten project that I hardly know where to begin.
>> If as you
>> say you are actually a PhD student (of something), and this is "part
>> of my
>> research/creative interest in transmodality (multi sensual
>> perception) of musical
>> experience, particularly with regard to the creation of musical
>> space" and "part
>> of my composition portfolio, and discussed in my thesis", your
>> project certainly
>> impugns the credentials or advisement capabilities of your thesis
>> adviser.
>>
>> Riding this jejune project on Brakhage's back does no credit to
>> either of you.
>>
>> --------------t0ny
>> On Sat 10/17/09 9:21 AM , Peiman Khosravi sent:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> This is my first post here so apologies if this is not the place for
>> it.
>> I am a PhD student at City University London, focusing my research
>> and
>> practice in studio based Electroacoustic music composition. At the
>> moment I am exploring audio/visual relationships as part of my
>> research/creative interest in transmodality (multi sensual
>> perception)
>> of musical experience, particularly with regard to the creation of
>> musical space. As a result I am interested in creating an acoustic
>> counterpart to part II of Brakhage's "Dog Star Man". Once
>> completed this will be part of my composition portfolio, and
>> discussed in my
>> thesis. It may also be played in presentations/concerts.
>>
>> This will not be a conventional soundtrack, nor does it intend to be
>>
>> in anyway representative of -or remain true to- Brakhage's original
>> work, which I understand and agree that should be watched in
>> silence.
>> The project will be my attempt to create a new work born out of a
>> network of audio/visual relationships. Naturally this will
>> reinterpret
>> the original film, acoustically magnifying certain visual aspects
>> that
>> are formally dominant in my experience of the work.
>> As it happens I have come to realize that Brakhage is one of the most
>>
>> "musical" filmmakers and working with his films would be like re-
>> interpreting a piece of Bach: the work already contains and
>> represents
>> a very pure form of musical thinking. For this reason it will no
>> doubt
>> be a challenge and may prove impossible for me to complete, or
>> arouse
>> other's criticism. However, I cannot avoid a challenge when I see
>> one!
>>
>> In short I am writing here with two questions:
>>
>> 1- Could someone please clarify for me the issue of copyrights with
>> Brakhage's works and point me to the right direction for getting
>> permissions for this project.
>>
>> 2- Any ideas and suggestions are more than welcomed... as I am not a
>>
>> filmmaker your ideas will for sure be very helpful to me.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance.
>>
>> Best,
>> Peiman
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at om>.
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>>
>> * FLICK\'S WEBSITE & BLOG: http://www.flickharrison.com [4] *
>> FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553 [5] *
>> MYSPACE: http://myspace.com/flickharrison [6]
>>
>> [7]
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [4] http://www.flickharrison.com
>> [5] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553
>> [6] http://myspace.com/flickharrison
>> [7] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/1
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.